Private Property and the Net

[Ame®icano]

Net Neutrality means that the cable companies cant create tiered service. If you believe that the telecoms will treat everyone fair ONLY WHEN they get to create packages then either you dont have cable or are a fool

If they own the cables, then why not?

Tell me, what's stopping them from setting up completely new superfast network and offering it only to those who pay extra?

Its sounds like you are against net neutrality.

Make your case of why the internet needs to be changed and how it will benefit the consumer?

Simply going "oh well" isnt a defense

First of all, why internet has to change from what it is now?

My case? No government involvement at all!!!

I understand, I often advocate for things I cant explain also

What exactly I can't explain, please?

I advocate against government involvement because it's never as they say it is. They selling something that you will agree to, only then you find out what's really all about.

 

[ClosedCaption]

the idea that no providers of legal Internet content should face discrimination in providing offerings to consumers, and that users should have equal access to see any legal content they choose.

And this, the cable companies are selling, is unfair. To treat all sites the same is unfair. Double plus ungood

Poor baby.

Contrary to popular belief, nobody owes you anything.

I think you quoted the wrong person or shuffled up your talking points cards

 

[sameech]

What people "could" do is irrelevant to law until they actually do it. This is not a first amendment issue because they are not being blocked, just not prioritized. It is like saying your first amendment rights are violated because your Congressman chooses to go to a fundraising dinner instead of coming to your house to hear your opinions and stories of woe.

You just described discrimination. You literally couldnt have gave a better definition.

You really should buy a dictionary as it appears that your internet provider blocked your access to one.

 

[sameech]

"It comes down to an issue of private property..."

Not sure it is quite that simple. The internet was developed with the help of government funds and authorities... not unlike the road system. I don't want the guy who built my subdivision or the guy who sold me my car to be able to tell me where I can drive. If they could them Ikea could pay them to restrict my access to Pier one.

If they did that, people would not buy their car from them. This is not about denying access to sites. This is about whether the bandwidth hogs should be given the right to carry 100 plates to the all you can eat buffet. ISP's have throttled users for decades but when it is netflix that might be throttled suddenly people are like "Tyranny!!!"

I am ok with ISPs throttling end users or charging for usage. I am not ok with them resticking access

"It comes down to an issue of private property..."

Not sure it is quite that simple. The internet was developed with the help of government funds and authorities... not unlike the road system. I don't want the guy who built my subdivision or the guy who sold me my car to be able to tell me where I can drive. If they could them Ikea could pay them to restrict my access to Pier one.

If they did that, people would not buy their car from them. This is not about denying access to sites. This is about whether the bandwidth hogs should be given the right to carry 100 plates to the all you can eat buffet. ISP's have throttled users for decades but when it is netflix that might be throttled suddenly people are like "Tyranny!!!"

I am ok with ISPs charging for usage but I am not ok with them restricting access or giving priority to the biggest players.

Then you are a hypocrite. The whole issue is about charging for usage to the companies that hog bandwidth.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Net Neutrality means that the cable companies cant create tiered service. If you believe that the telecoms will treat everyone fair ONLY WHEN they get to create packages then either you dont have cable or are a fool

If they own the cables, then why not?

Tell me, what's stopping them from setting up completely new superfast network and offering it only to those who pay extra?

Its sounds like you are against net neutrality.

Make your case of why the internet needs to be changed and how it will benefit the consumer?

Simply going "oh well" isnt a defense

First of all, why internet has to change from what it is now?

My case? No government involvement at all!!!

I understand, I often advocate for things I cant explain also

What exactly I can't explain, please?

I advocate against government involvement because it's never as they say it is. They selling something that you will agree to, only then you find out what's really all about.

And what reason do you think the monopoly telecoms will treat you better? Competition that doesnt exist?

Because they promised not to after they already have?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It seems that several of our pals are willing to cede control of every aspect of life to big government.....
When did Americans give up the ghost????


8. In short....if you believe that the command and control government should be able to dictate, by regulation and/or fiat, what privately owned businesses should be able to do with their property, then you are in favor of communism, socialism, or fascism.


Of course you can rationalize your support, and then claim, as TS Eliot, in 'Prufrock'...

" Would it have been worth while
If one, settling a pillow or throwing off a shawl,
And turning toward the window, should say:
“That is not it at all,
That is not what I meant, at all.”


Are any of you, as Americans, ready to sell your birthright for lower cable TV bills and faster internet???
Liberty, the free market, rewards for personal endeavor......all sold to make certain you have instant access to the 24-hour All Cartoon Network????




9. Take a look at what the ‘Eco-Fascists’ have already managed the sequestration of productive land unmatched since the age of kings. Over 30% of the American land base lies under no-use or limited-use restrictions….almost 700 million acres. The Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior are targeting the confiscation of another 213 million acres, bringing the count to nearly half of the continent!
http://r-calfusa.com/Trade/property_rights/100900BLMLeakedMemo.pdf


Are there any limits to what government Leftists can do....or limits to what the cement-heads will sign on to????

 

[ClosedCaption]

What people "could" do is irrelevant to law until they actually do it. This is not a first amendment issue because they are not being blocked, just not prioritized. It is like saying your first amendment rights are violated because your Congressman chooses to go to a fundraising dinner instead of coming to your house to hear your opinions and stories of woe.

You just described discrimination. You literally couldnt have gave a better definition.

You really should buy a dictionary as it appears that your internet provider blocked your access to one.

you're right prioritizing one over another is called fairness, my bad

 

[PoliticalChic]

If they own the cables, then why not?

Tell me, what's stopping them from setting up completely new superfast network and offering it only to those who pay extra?

Its sounds like you are against net neutrality.

Make your case of why the internet needs to be changed and how it will benefit the consumer?

Simply going "oh well" isnt a defense

First of all, why internet has to change from what it is now?

My case? No government involvement at all!!!

I understand, I often advocate for things I cant explain also

What exactly I can't explain, please?

I advocate against government involvement because it's never as they say it is. They selling something that you will agree to, only then you find out what's really all about.

And what reason do you think the monopoly telecoms will treat you better? Competition that doesnt exist?

Because they promised not to after they already have?

Please....try to restrict your posts to words you understand.....
..unless that would make you mute.


mo·nop·o·ly(m

-n

p

-l

)
n. pl. mo·nop·o·lies
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopolyfrequently ... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (MiltonFriedman).
2. Law A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to asingle party.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thats it PC...quote even bigger dumbasses who dont know what they are talking about as proof.

Ted Cruz just said "internet obamacare" and thats all he had to do

It would be incumbent upon you to provide examples of where he got it wrong.....

But you didn't provide any examples because he didn't get it wrong.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Its sounds like you are against net neutrality.

Make your case of why the internet needs to be changed and how it will benefit the consumer?

Simply going "oh well" isnt a defense

First of all, why internet has to change from what it is now?

My case? No government involvement at all!!!

I understand, I often advocate for things I cant explain also

What exactly I can't explain, please?

I advocate against government involvement because it's never as they say it is. They selling something that you will agree to, only then you find out what's really all about.

And what reason do you think the monopoly telecoms will treat you better? Competition that doesnt exist?

Because they promised not to after they already have?

Please....try to restrict your posts to words you understand.....
..unless that would make you mute.


mo·nop·o·ly(m

-n

p

-l

)
n. pl. mo·nop·o·lies
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopolyfrequently ... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (MiltonFriedman).
2. Law A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to asingle party.

Exactly, now look at the map:

You cant get more monopoly than that if you wore a Monicle and just passed go

 

[Eric Cartman]

 

[ClosedCaption]

"It comes down to an issue of private property..."

Not sure it is quite that simple. The internet was developed with the help of government funds and authorities... not unlike the road system. I don't want the guy who built my subdivision or the guy who sold me my car to be able to tell me where I can drive. If they could them Ikea could pay them to restrict my access to Pier one.

If they did that, people would not buy their car from them. This is not about denying access to sites. This is about whether the bandwidth hogs should be given the right to carry 100 plates to the all you can eat buffet. ISP's have throttled users for decades but when it is netflix that might be throttled suddenly people are like "Tyranny!!!"

I am ok with ISPs throttling end users or charging for usage. I am not ok with them resticking access

"It comes down to an issue of private property..."

Not sure it is quite that simple. The internet was developed with the help of government funds and authorities... not unlike the road system. I don't want the guy who built my subdivision or the guy who sold me my car to be able to tell me where I can drive. If they could them Ikea could pay them to restrict my access to Pier one.

If they did that, people would not buy their car from them. This is not about denying access to sites. This is about whether the bandwidth hogs should be given the right to carry 100 plates to the all you can eat buffet. ISP's have throttled users for decades but when it is netflix that might be throttled suddenly people are like "Tyranny!!!"

I am ok with ISPs charging for usage but I am not ok with them restricting access or giving priority to the biggest players.

Then you are a hypocrite. The whole issue is about charging for usage to the companies that hog bandwidth.

No it not....for the fucking 40th time. Cable companies dont ONLY want to charge sites that use more bandwidth they want to charge everyone for faster sites. Essentially creating a corporate internet that will be fast and the sites, companies, blogs etc that dont pay will still be available just after staring at this for a while

Or they wont even offer it if they have a competing service.

 

[PoliticalChic]

First of all, why internet has to change from what it is now?

My case? No government involvement at all!!!

I understand, I often advocate for things I cant explain also

What exactly I can't explain, please?

I advocate against government involvement because it's never as they say it is. They selling something that you will agree to, only then you find out what's really all about.

And what reason do you think the monopoly telecoms will treat you better? Competition that doesnt exist?

Because they promised not to after they already have?

Please....try to restrict your posts to words you understand.....
..unless that would make you mute.


mo·nop·o·ly(m

-n

p

-l

)
n. pl. mo·nop·o·lies
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopolyfrequently ... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (MiltonFriedman).
2. Law A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to asingle party.

Exactly, now look at the map:

You cant get more monopoly than that if you wore a Monicle and just passed go

Is English your first language?

Do you have a first language?

I provided the definition of monopoly.

I can explain it to you, dope, I can't comprehend it for you.

You just showed ten- 10- companies in that graph.

 

[Toronado3800]

I am split on this one.

On the one hand Amazon and all their streaming videos put a lot more pressure on the Comcast network so they should have to pay more.

On the other it is a slippery slope where Comcast could throttle down the next Republican convention or charge them outragous rates.

I would say charge Amazon more based on their traffic rates, but what if my website about my cars and trees suddenly gets super popular? Should I have to pay more?

My estemed co-worker feels this is not much of a proboem yet and nuetrality should be enforeced. Stupid Charter Communications went bankrupt recently so in thinking mayne uograding their lines to be able to handle stresming video whivh makes Natflix money cost Charter money it seems fair to allow Charter to charge Netflix. Afterall the electric company charges based on usage.

Then again the free speech person in me LOVES the idea of an open near free internet.

Tough one. If forced to vote I may allow a surcharge on the top 1% of bandwidth users and .coms, I guess. Give them some incentive to make internet video as bandwidth friendly as cable tv video.

1. So, you can't imagine the free market taking care of the problem?
Tell me....do you subscribe to every single channel available?
No?
Why not.....because you've made informed decisions as to which are worth your support.

Get it?


2. "If forced to vote I may allow a surcharge on the top 1% of bandwidth users and .coms, I guess."
Vote????

Why the heck would you have a vote in a private company's business policy?
Well....if you were a stock-holder....but then you'd want the highest possible profit.....

No, I do not see the free market protecting free speech. Neither cable nor over the air tv allow free speech. Short wave radio sorta does until you annoy someone by using their alloted part of the spectrum.

So yeah, I wanna make sure the providers get theirs from the BIG companies that profit from shipping video around the world

I wanna make sure we don't have a scrunch coming up like in the days of dial up where you would have trouble getting online or getting the web to work once you did

I wanna give politicalchic.com equal footing with the RNC for getting heard.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am split on this one.

On the one hand Amazon and all their streaming videos put a lot more pressure on the Comcast network so they should have to pay more.

On the other it is a slippery slope where Comcast could throttle down the next Republican convention or charge them outragous rates.

I would say charge Amazon more based on their traffic rates, but what if my website about my cars and trees suddenly gets super popular? Should I have to pay more?

My estemed co-worker feels this is not much of a proboem yet and nuetrality should be enforeced. Stupid Charter Communications went bankrupt recently so in thinking mayne uograding their lines to be able to handle stresming video whivh makes Natflix money cost Charter money it seems fair to allow Charter to charge Netflix. Afterall the electric company charges based on usage.

Then again the free speech person in me LOVES the idea of an open near free internet.

Tough one. If forced to vote I may allow a surcharge on the top 1% of bandwidth users and .coms, I guess. Give them some incentive to make internet video as bandwidth friendly as cable tv video.

1. So, you can't imagine the free market taking care of the problem?
Tell me....do you subscribe to every single channel available?
No?
Why not.....because you've made informed decisions as to which are worth your support.

Get it?


2. "If forced to vote I may allow a surcharge on the top 1% of bandwidth users and .coms, I guess."
Vote????

Why the heck would you have a vote in a private company's business policy?
Well....if you were a stock-holder....but then you'd want the highest possible profit.....

No, I do not see the free market protecting free speech. Neither cable nor over the air tv allow free speech. Short wave radio sorta does until you annoy someone by using their alloted part of the spectrum.

So yeah, I wanna make sure the providers get theirs from the BIG companies that profit from shipping video around the world

I wanna make sure we don't have a scrunch coming up like in the days of dial up where you would have trouble getting online or getting the web to work once you did

I wanna give politicalchic.com equal footing with the RNC for getting heard.

Free speech?????

Please...just go back to staring at the wall.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I understand, I often advocate for things I cant explain also

What exactly I can't explain, please?

I advocate against government involvement because it's never as they say it is. They selling something that you will agree to, only then you find out what's really all about.

And what reason do you think the monopoly telecoms will treat you better? Competition that doesnt exist?

Because they promised not to after they already have?

Please....try to restrict your posts to words you understand.....
..unless that would make you mute.


mo·nop·o·ly(m

-n

p

-l

)
n. pl. mo·nop·o·lies
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopolyfrequently ... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (MiltonFriedman).
2. Law A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to asingle party.

Exactly, now look at the map:

You cant get more monopoly than that if you wore a Monicle and just passed go

Is English your first language?

Do you have a first language?

I provided the definition of monopoly.

I can explain it to you, dope, I can't comprehend it for you.

You just showed ten- 10- companies in that graph.

All not competing with each other unless you're confusing "competing" with "existing".

 

[PoliticalChic]

What exactly I can't explain, please?

I advocate against government involvement because it's never as they say it is. They selling something that you will agree to, only then you find out what's really all about.

And what reason do you think the monopoly telecoms will treat you better? Competition that doesnt exist?

Because they promised not to after they already have?

Please....try to restrict your posts to words you understand.....
..unless that would make you mute.


mo·nop·o·ly(m

-n

p

-l

)
n. pl. mo·nop·o·lies
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopolyfrequently ... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (MiltonFriedman).
2. Law A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to asingle party.

Exactly, now look at the map:

You cant get more monopoly than that if you wore a Monicle and just passed go

Is English your first language?

Do you have a first language?

I provided the definition of monopoly.

I can explain it to you, dope, I can't comprehend it for you.

You just showed ten- 10- companies in that graph.

All not competing with each other unless you're confusing "competing" with "existing".

Do you know what the prefix 'mono,' in monopoly, means?
Do you?

OK....this might help you:

1. Go to 'google.'
2. type in 'do a barrel roll'


Feel better?

 

[ClosedCaption]

And what reason do you think the monopoly telecoms will treat you better? Competition that doesnt exist?

Because they promised not to after they already have?

Please....try to restrict your posts to words you understand.....
..unless that would make you mute.


mo·nop·o·ly(m

-n

p

-l

)
n. pl. mo·nop·o·lies
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopolyfrequently ... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (MiltonFriedman).
2. Law A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to asingle party.

Exactly, now look at the map:

You cant get more monopoly than that if you wore a Monicle and just passed go

Is English your first language?

Do you have a first language?

I provided the definition of monopoly.

I can explain it to you, dope, I can't comprehend it for you.

You just showed ten- 10- companies in that graph.

All not competing with each other unless you're confusing "competing" with "existing".

Do you know what the prefix 'mono,' in monopoly, means?
Do you?

So you arent going by your definition anymore?

mo·nop·o·ly(m

-n

p

-l

)
n. pl. mo·nop·o·lies
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopolyfrequently ... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (MiltonFriedman).

Because it doesnt say that only one must exist.

 

[Ame®icano]

And what reason do you think the monopoly telecoms will treat you better? Competition that doesnt exist?

Because they promised not to after they already have?

Competition does exist, where I live.

And I don't think they will treat me better, I know so. Bottom line, if I have to chose in between "crooked" business and "transparent" government, I'll still chose business.

 

[ClosedCaption]

And what reason do you think the monopoly telecoms will treat you better? Competition that doesnt exist?

Because they promised not to after they already have?

Competition does exist, where I live.

And I don't think they will treat me better, I know so. Bottom line, if I have to chose in between "crooked" business and "transparent" government, I'll still chose business.

Well I guess when you dont know history you are doomed to repeat it.